Ex Parte Kouznetsov et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 4, 2012

10122092 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 4, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte VICTOR KOUZNETSOV, DAVIDE LIBENZI, MARTIN
FALLENSTEDT, DAVID W. PALMER, and MICHAEL C. PAK
____________

Appeal 2009-011865
Application 10/122,0921
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, MARC S. HOFF, and GREGORY J.
GONSALVES, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1, 3-9, and 11-26.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

1 The real party in interest is McAfee, Inc.
2 Claims 2 and 10 have been cancelled.
Appeal 2009-011865
Application 10/122,092

2
We affirm-in-part.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention concerns scanning wireless devices for
malware. Data stored in persistent memory of a mobile wireless device is
accessed. The data is scanned using an anti-malware scanner of the mobile
wireless device. Such data is accessed using an abstract file system
interface. The abstract file system interface may be implemented for each
class of the data stored in the persistent memory (Spec. 4).
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the
subject matter on appeal.
1. A method for scanning a mobile wireless device for
malware comprising:

accessing data stored in persistent memory of a mobile
wireless device; and

scanning the data utilizing an anti-malware scanner of the
mobile wireless device;

wherein the data is accessed utilizing an abstract file
system interface;

wherein the abstract file system interface is implemented
for each class of the data stored in the persistent memory.

REFERENCES
Kimura US 5,864,853 Jan. 26, 1999
Howard US 6,496,837 B1 Dec. 17, 2002
(filed Jun. 27, 2000)

F-Secure Corp., F-Secure Anti-virus for Pocket PC (F-Secure
Corp. 2000-2001) (hereinafter “F-Secure”).
Appeal 2009-011865
Application 10/122,092

3
Grattan and Brain, Windows CE 3.0 Application (Prentice Hall
2001) (hereinafter “Windows CE”).

REJECTIONS
Claims 20-26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as
failing to enable an “abstract file system interface.”
Claims 1, 3-5, 9, 11-13, and 17-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over F-Secure in view of Kimura.
Claims 6-8 and 14-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over F-Secure in view of Kimura and Howard.

ISSUES
With respect to the § 112 rejection, Appellants argue that the “abstract
file system interface” is enabled by the Specification.
With respect to the prior art rejection of claims 1, 3-5, 9, 11-13, and
17-19, Appellants argue that Windows CE does not inherently include an
abstract file system interface. Appellants further argue that Kimura teaches
away from combination with F-Secure because Kimura teaches that its
“stationary data processing device” executes “desired processing” after data
is converted from a portable data processing device into a form suitable for
the stationary data processing device (App. Br. 11-12).
With respect to the prior art rejection of claims 6-8 and 14-16,
Appellants contend that Howard fails to teach “wherein the call back
functions enumerate the data” (claim 7) or “wherein the call back functions
manipulate the data” (claim 8) (App. Br. 17-18).
Appellants’ contentions present us with the following issues:
Appeal 2009-011865
Application 10/122,092

4
1. Does Appellants’ Specification enable the claim phrase “abstract
file system interface”?
2. Is an abstract file system interface inherent to Windows CE
devices?
3. Does Howard teach call back functions that enumerate the data?
4. Does Howard teach call back functions that manipulate the data?

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Section 103(a) forbids issuance of a patent when “the
differences between the subject matter sought to be patented
and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole
would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to
a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject
matter pertains.”

KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of
obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations
including (1) the scope and content of the prior art, (2) any differences
between the claimed subject matter and the prior art, (3) the level of skill in
the art, and (4) where in evidence, so-called secondary considerations.
Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966). See also KSR, 550
U.S. at 407, (“While the sequence of these questions might be reordered in
any particular case, the [Graham] factors continue to define the inquiry that
controls.”)

Appeal 2009-011865
Application 10/122,092

5
ANALYSIS
REJECTION UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 112, FIRST PARAGRAPH
We do not agree with the Examiner that Appellants’ Specification
fails to enable the claimed “abstract file system interface” including a
storage I/O interface, dynamic memory allocation interface, process control
call interface, network I/O interface, system event handler interface, and/or
system information routine interfaces. The Specification discloses that
“[t]he abstract file system provides an interface for supporting features in the
platform abstraction layer” (Spec. 112). The platform abstraction layer
includes a plurality of application programming interfaces (APIs), including
those recited in claims 20-26 (Spec. 105-112).
Taking these sections together, we find that the Specification provides
support for an abstract file system interface including the particular
interfaces claimed. Therefore, we will not sustain the Examiner’s § 112
rejection of claims 20-26.

SECTION 103 REJECTION OF CLAIMS 1, 3-5, 9, 11, 13, AND 17-19
Appellants argue, inter alia, that an abstract file system interface is
not inherent to Windows CE devices (App. Br. 13-14), and that Kimura
teaches away from combination with F-Secure (App. Br. 11-13). According
to Appellants, the sections of Windows CE cited by the Examiner merely
describe that files may be opened, read, written, and otherwise manipulated
in the usual manner.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument. We agree with the
Examiner’s finding that Windows CE inherently contains an abstract file
system interface (Ans. 4). Chapter 3 of Windows CE discloses an Object
Appeal 2009-011865
Application 10/122,092

6
Store that can store files, directories, registry items, and property database
records (Chapter 3, p. 1). We further agree with the Examiner’s finding that
“functions (i.e., an API) are used to access everything in the Object Store,
which encompasses the set of all types of data that can be stored on the
Windows CE device” (Ans. 12). We find that Windows CE teaches an
abstract file system interface, implemented for each class of the data stored
in the persistent memory, because Windows CE teaches the ability to access
diverse types of objects (e.g. files, directories, registry items, property
database records) with a common API.
Because we agree with the Examiner’s finding that Windows CE
inherently teaches an abstract file system interface, we find the teachings of
Kimura to be merely cumulative to the Examiner’s asserted rejection.
Appellants’ arguments concerning Kimura (App. Br. 11-13) are therefore
moot.
We conclude that the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1, 3-5,
9, 11, 13, and 17-19. We will sustain the § 103 rejection.
CLAIMS 4 AND 12
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ assertion that Kimura fails to
teach the claimed abstract directory entry interface (App. Br. 15-16). We
agree with the Examiner that Appellants’ Brief includes no explanation of
how Appellants believe “abstract directory entry interface” (claims 4, 12)
should be construed. Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that such an
interface is fairly construed as “merely a means to list the entries in a
directory” (Ans. 14; see Spec. 117). We further agree with the Examiner’s
finding that Kimura teaches the ability to read out the content of a directory
(col. 15, ll. 50-53).
Appeal 2009-011865
Application 10/122,092

7
We conclude that the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 4 and
12 under § 103. We will sustain the rejection.
CLAIMS 6 AND 14
Appellants rely for patentability on the arguments made for claim 1.
We will, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 6 and 14
for the same reasons stated with respect to claim 1, supra.
CLAIMS 7, 8, 15, AND 16
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments that Howard fails to
teach that the call back functions enumerate the data (App. Br. 17) or
manipulate the data (App. Br. 18).
We agree with the Examiner’s finding that “enumerating the data”
may be construed as “the ability for a program to read a file in order to
perform action(s) on it” (Ans. 15, citing Spec. 43 [sic, 45]). We further
agree with the Examiner’s finding that Howard teaches that “the virtual
directory system could implement its own file read command back to the
installable file system” (Howard col. 14, ll. 4-6).
With respect to “manipulating the data,” we agree with the
Examiner’s finding that Howard teaches that “the virtual directory system
can act as a safety file backup program to store files that have been deleted
from the native file directory system, in case those deletions are later
regretted” (col. 14, ll. 64-67), which corresponds to Howard’s “call back
functions … manipulating the data” (Ans. 16).
We conclude that the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 7, 8, 15,
and 16 under § 103. We will sustain the rejection.
Appeal 2009-011865
Application 10/122,092

8
CONCLUSIONS
1. Appellants’ Specification enables the claim phrase “abstract file
system interface.”
2. An abstract file system interface is inherent to Windows CE
devices.
3. Howard teaches call back functions that enumerate the data.
4. Howard teaches call back functions that manipulate the data.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3-9 and 11-19 is
affirmed. The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 20-26 is reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R.§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv)(2010).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

peb